The RCC Magisterium is in irreconcilable self-contradiction

[LetsObeyChrist]

Apologia100:

This is the heresy of Pelagius.

What does this have to do with the apparent sinfulness of Mary.

That is ad hominem, mere evasion of the issue.

Scott Lawho
“…when apologists evade the issue with ad hominem for the sake of their cherished myths, they are blind leading the blind by a short route into the pit.” - St. GotItright MoreThanYou

 

[The_Barrister]

LetsObeyChrist:

Douay Rheims text was cited, but the Vulgate’s Latin was declared doctrinally correct.

Peccato = sin.

Hence your point was pointless.

The paradox is clear. If Mary were sinless then she was NOT offering this sacrifice “according to the law of Moses” (Lk 2:22).

The law of Moses says this sacrifice is made only for one’s own sins and never in mere ceremony for what is “not sin.”

Not doing this sacrifice exactly according to Moses is sin and if Mary did as the RCC says she did then she became a sinner at that time by her needless slaughter of harmless and inoffensive turtledoves, and by her rebellion against the Law of Moses as recorded in the doctrinally correct Vulgate.

Wrong.

“Needless slaughter of harmless and inoffensive turtledoves…” You don’t know very much about how the Jews lives in those days, do you? This is the danger when every man’s a priest.

Another way to look at it (other than the offering for her bleeding) - Mary’s offer of doves for the sins of others was a precursor to Jesus’ sacrifice for the sins of others. All the more reason to venerate Mary for the path she chose.

 

[Apologia100]

theMutant:

Yes, but re-read what it actually says in Leviticus (as I should have prior to my previous response) - and also what it does not say. The sacrifice is an offering that is required for the “sin” of having a child and - SPECIFICALLY - for the bleeding (and other fluid discharge) that is involved in delivery. Clearly, we are not talking here about the same level of sinning as deliberate wilfull sinning (which is what the Church says Mary never did) but the “sin” of being unclean. Indeed, this is clearly the contextual meaning of the passage as it appears within a whole large list of other sacrifices for purification. This sacrifice is required by all women after childbirth regardless of whether they are conscious of actual sin or not. It is the emission of blood and fluid in childbirth that invokes the requirement of the sacrifice.

Let’s grant that it is an offering for actual sin, however, and see where your position goes in that case. Does Leviticus state that the offering is made for the sin of the new mother? No. It merely states that one of the turtledoves is for a sin offering and the other is a burnt offering. Whose sin is it for? Leviticus doesn’t say so you have no biblical grounds for saying that it is for the sin of the mother since no actual sin is mentioned in regard to the sacrifice. You may argue that the sacrifice doesn’t make sense if it is not for the sin of the mother but you are still inserting your own assumption into Scripture and not relying on what Scripture actually says. Within the realm of Jewish religious practice, one could offer sacrifice for the sins of another and, since no mention of actual sin is made in the relavent passage, it is possible that this sacrifice is made for the community in which the child is born, it could be made for the child, it could even be made for Eve and/or Adam.

You are clearly not actually arguing against the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding Mary’s sinlessness - which only states that she was preserved against original sin from the moment of her conception and that she committed no actual (wilfull) sin during her life - but against God for using the word sin in Leviticus relation to the flow of blood and fluid involved in childbirth.

Therefore, the Catholic Church is not in irreconcilable self-contradiction.

Additionally, this practice was to atone for the uncleanliness of childbirth, not for intentional sinfulness. Otherwise, another excellent post Mutant. You are impressing me (not that impressing ME means much of anything).

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

You guys are answering the wrong parts of LetsObeyChrist’s posts.

What you guys should be attacking first is his premise, “The RCC has infallibly stated the Vulgate is doctrinally correct.”

The Church never assumes “infallibility” when a Pope or Council endorses a particular ecclesiastical work, like a Bible translation. Likewise, she can condemn a book for being heretical, and then on further examination find that the charge is baseless.

Take a hike, LetsObey; quit embarrasing yourself.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

theMutant:

Yes, but re-read what it actually says in Leviticus (as I should have prior to my previous response) - and also what it does not say. The sacrifice is an offering that is required for the “sin” of having a child and - SPECIFICALLY - for the bleeding (and other fluid discharge) that is involved in delivery. Clearly, we are not talking here about the same level of sinning as deliberate wilfull sinning (which is what the Church says Mary never did) but the “sin” of being unclean…

I don’t believe you are defending the RCC position which says Mary was “sinless,” not “mostly sinless.”

If bleeding alone disrupted it, then when the bleeding stopped that would suffice to restore atonement. It didn’t. God required an offering for sin be given the priests AFTER the bleeding stopped and all traces of it cleansed from the body.

It would be special pleading to say God required the non sinning Mary give an offering for sin when He never requires similar “payment” from the innocent elsewhere.

The idea “those not sinning must offer sacrifices for sin” is a non Mosaic concept and Mary’s sacrifice was given according to the Law of Moses, the law of the Lord taught in Scripture.

**Being in atonement with God = being in His presence. **

Therefore oozing bodily fluids in the Presence of the Sovereign misses the mark of proper conduct, of respect, and is exposing God to what is unclean, nasty.

That is “missing the mark” if I ever saw it, “sin.”

It is wrong to expose God to such, He did not author such manifestations of disease and death. These exist because of the sinful rebellion against God and are the consequences of sin.

It is hardly surprising God considers the heavenly entrance of such nasty things as leprous sores, seminal and menstrual issues and dead bodies, things which exist solely because man followed the devil in his rebellion against God, sin.

I don’t believe you would like such in your living room if these were naked before your sight as they are to God.

All women are required to give this offering because of their bleeding during birthing, this “sin” has nothing to do with the child being born:

Leviticus 15:28 If the blood stop and cease to run, she shall count seven days of her purification: 29 And on the eighth day she shall offer for herself to the priest, two turtles, or two young pigeons, at the door of the tabernacle of the testimony: 30 And he shall offer one for sin, and the other for a holocaust, and he shall pray for her before the Lord, and for the issue of her uncleanness. 31 You shall teach therefore the children of Israel to take heed of uncleanness, that they may not die in their filth, when they shall have defiled my tabernacle that is among them.

It is certain 19th century RCC dogma about this stands in direct contradiction to the most Holy Deposit of the faith, Holy Scripture.

Scripture expressly states Mary gave this sacrifice for sin “according to the law of the Lord” and “the law of the Lord” does not ordain this sacrifice for what is not sin. It is given to a priest so he can make atonement for sin; if sin had not disrupted atonement then a sin offering would not be necessary for reparation of it.

Scripture would not say Mary’s turtledove sin offering was according to the Law of Moses if indeed it was not.

 

[Apologia100]

Thanks Dominus, and that said, the onus is now on you LetsObeyChrist to provide us all with THE infallible statement that the Church made declaring the Vulgate as doctrinally correct. Link please, so we can go see it with our own eyes, and that link should tie back to a legitimate Catholic source, or it will be considered spurious.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Apologia100:

Thanks Dominus, and that said, the onus is now on you LetsObeyChrist to provide us all with THE infallible statement that the Church made declaring the Vulgate as doctrinally correct. Link please, so we can go see it with our own eyes, and that link should tie back to a legitimate Catholic source, or it will be considered spurious.

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

Your evasion of the issue is tiring, why should I prove to you what you believe?

Rather if what I said misrepresents official teaching then it is on you to produce the material proving that.

You will observe the discussion at that link refutes the idea the Vulgate’s translation was declared 100% correct. However it insists it is ruled doctrinally correct.

As “sin” that is “not sin” is doctrinally impossible, what Catholic Answers says about translation is not material against my argument.

 

[Apologia100]

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

Your evasion of the issue is tiring, why should I prove to you what you believe?

Rather if what I said misrepresents official teaching then it is on you to produce the material proving that.

You will observe the discussion at that link refutes the idea the Vulgate’s translation was declared 100% correct. However it insists it is ruled doctrinally correct.

As “sin” that is “not sin” is doctrinally impossible, what Catholic Answers says about translation is not material against my argument.

Your obfuscation is tiring. You made your entire case on the PRESUMPTION that the Vulgate is infallibly declared to be doctrinally correct. I say prove it. IN case you forgot what you said in your initial post, I’ll restate it

“The RCC has infallibly stated the Vulgate is doctrinally correct.”

You cited an obscure article from “This Rock” magazine regarding the accuracy of the Duoay-Rheims, but the DR is not the source in question, its the Vulgate. I want a citation from the Roman Catholic Church infallibly declaring the Vulgate to be doctrinally correct. You cannot, because NO BIBLE is doctrinally correct or incorrect. The bible is part of the deposit of faith, which along with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, infallibly declare DOCTRINES to be either correct or incorrect, not books. Sacred Scripture is just one of the sources used in developing doctrine, it makes no doctrinal statements in and of itself.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

DominvsVobiscvm:

You guys are answering the wrong parts of LetsObeyChrist’s posts.

What you guys should be attacking first is his premise, “The RCC has infallibly stated the Vulgate is doctrinally correct.”

The Church never assumes “infallibility” when a Pope or Council endorses a particular ecclesiastical work, like a Bible translation. Likewise, she can condemn a book for being heretical, and then on further examination find that the charge is baseless.

Take a hike, LetsObey; quit embarrasing yourself.

O great Dominus Obscurum, feast your eyes on this beautific sight:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Apologia100:

Your obfuscation is tiring. You made your entire case on the PRESUMPTION that the Vulgate is infallibly declared to be doctrinally correct. I say prove it. IN case you forgot what you said in your initial post, I’ll restate it
You cited an obscure article from “This Rock” magazine regarding the accuracy of the Duoay-Rheims, but the DR is not the source in question, its the Vulgate. I want a citation from the Roman Catholic Church infallibly declaring the Vulgate to be doctrinally correct. You cannot, because NO BIBLE is doctrinally correct or incorrect. The bible is part of the deposit of faith, which along with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, infallibly declare DOCTRINES to be either correct or incorrect, not books. Sacred Scripture is just one of the sources used in developing doctrine, it makes no doctrinal statements in and of itself.

No.

If what Catholic Answers says about the Vugate is incorrect, post the material proving that.

They argue that the Vulgate is superior on four grounds: (1) It is the official Bible of the Catholic Church; (2) it has been declared free of moral or theological error, (3) Jerome had access to manuscripts that we do not have today, and (4) he was a stupendous translator.

The first point is not true. There was a time when the Vulgate could be described as an “official” translation of Scripture for the Latin rite of the Church, but not the whole Church. It also never superseded the original language versions in authority (a point Pius XII made in Divino Afflante Spiritu21). But while the Vulgate in its latest edition—the “Neo-Vulgate” promulgated by John Paul II—has a privileged position based on its use in ecclesiastical documents, the law has changed such that there is no “official” translation of Scripture for the Latin rite.

The second point is true—ecclesiastical documents have acknowleged that the Vulgate is free of doctrinal and moral error. However, not containing doctrinal and moral error is not the same thing as being a perfect translation. In fact, it isn’t even the same thing as being a good translation. If someone utters the Spanish sentence " La manzana es verde" and I translate that as “The apple is red,” then I have in not committed a moral or theological error, but I have committed a translation error (verde means green, not red).

In the same way, as Pius XII pointed out (DAS 20), this does not mean that the Vulgate always reflects accurately what is in the original texts. Sometimes it doesn’t.

END

As “sin” cannot doctrinally be “not sin” what Catholic Answers had to say about the accuracy of the translation is NOT material to my post.

The Vulgate doctrinally says turtledoves are offered for sin.

 

[Apologia100]

I’ll assume that you were referencing this quote from the article in “This Rock”

“They argue that the Vulgate is superior on four grounds: (1) It is the official Bible of the Catholic Church; (2) it has been declared free of moral or theological error, (3) Jerome had access to manuscripts that we do not have today, and (4) he was a stupendous translator.”

1. It is.
2. There is a world of difference between something being free from moral and theological error and begin free from DOCTRINAL error.
3. Again, true statement. Jerome had access to documents several hundred years after them being written, vs 1600 years in the case of KJV.
4. Jerome still is considered to be one of the best translators of Greek and Latin of all time.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Apologia100:

I’ll assume that you were referencing this quote from the article in “This Rock”

1. It is.
2. There is a world of difference between something being free from moral and theological error and begin free from DOCTRINAL error.
3. Again, true statement. Jerome had access to documents several hundred years after them being written, vs 1600 years in the case of KJV.
4. Jerome still is considered to be one of the best translators of Greek and Latin of all time.

Reread the post above, I inserted the Catholic Answer’s text I was referring to and how it is not material against my argument.

 

[WBB]

You seem to be missing the point, LetsObey…

Chapter 12 of Leviticus deals with purification of a woman after childbirth. Childbirth was regarded as a loss of vitality; this loss had to be made good by ritual means: union with God, the source of life, is then re-established.

The offering is to purify the uncleanness which occurs after childbirth. It is this “uncleanness” which was defined by the Levitical Code which is at issue, not original sin, which is what is at issue with the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Apologia100]

LetsObeyChrist:

Reread the post above, I inserted the Catholic Answer’s text I was referring to and how it is not material against my argument.

No thanks, I’ll wait until you prove, from a verifiable, official Catholic source, that the Vulgate has been declare doctrinally correct. Until you do, any arguement based on that premise is spurious and contentious.

 

[Malachi4U]

Gods peace be with you friend of God LetsObeyChrist,

I wish to thank you for starting this thread. Your argument has proven to me the sinless ness of “Blessed Mary”. As a protestant I saw only the mud too. As a Catholic I ‘see’ the pure water and the then also the filth that was mixed in it, but not part of it. “Blessed Mary” was a great woman. Of all the women ever born she was chosen to bare the Son of God by God. Far be it from me to try and blemish or put blame and shame on someone God Himself has chosen to bestow a great honor. You can go ahead and do it though. Try and cause more schism in His body if you like. But your argument here is pointless. Your own statements have shown your position unfounded. Open your eyes, lift the scales, ‘see’ what others here have written. Clearly you read what they say just as you have read Sacred Scripture. But you cannot ‘see’ what they have said.

Lk 1:28-48 “…Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women…for thou hast found favour with God…Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb…For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” AKJV

I call her “Blessed Mary”, why do you not?

By your own logic you must PROVE Blessed Mary committed a sin. So please list her plethora of sin for us all to see. If you cannot prove she committed a single sin, then admit you’re sorry, not to me or others here but to Blessed Mary - a living Saint in heaven. She deserves an apology from you and others like you. I do not know what gifts those in heaven have but I am sure if she cannot hear your apology God will pass it on to her.

You have chosen to pick on a wonderful and blessed woman who is not here to defend herself against your illogical accusations. She is a living Saint in heaven along with others. God has never had to PROVE himself nor have His Saints and Angels. God chooses to reveal Himself by His Good works/deeds and allows us freewill to choose to follow Him or not. He has never had to come and prove Himself to any of His truly Faithful. He has proven Himself by His good works! You will know a tree by its fruit. Fruit/works do not attack, they shine like a light taken out from under a basket. Good works do not attack, they shine and lead us by example. I have Faith in what I have never seen, blessed are they who have Faith and have not seen. I have Faith because I have seen His good works. When has God ever defended Himself from lies?

LetsObeyChrist:

…Moreover you are wrong to say Christ sacrificed for the innocent, He was God’s sacrifice for the guilty…

Here you did not see what ecca homo wrote. This proves my point exactly. You do not ‘see’ what you read.

Pick on me or Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or a Pope or anyone else that has documented evidence of our sins. Do not pick on a defenseless, honorable and Blessed woman whom has not done you or any other protestant any harm. Why do you hate her so much you wish to smear her Blessed name? Do you hate what you think Catholics are so much?

Sorry for my passion here. I apologize in advance if I hurt your feelings. As a Christian I defend the defenseless. I protect unborn children by voting Pro-life, I protect Blessed Mary by defending what God finds no need to defend.

 

[theMutant]

LetsObeyChrist:

I don’t believe you are defending the RCC position which says Mary was “sinless,” not "mostly sinless."p

This is clearly not what I was arguing. I was noting the difference between actual sin - which Mary never committed - and ritual uncleanliness which was referred to as sin in the Old Testament despite the fact that it was not actually sin. If you have a problem with this then you have a problem with God for the Old Testament even refers to the Lord repenting of evil which He thought to do (Exodus 32:14). Are we supposed to believe that God actually had evil thoughts? That is utter nonsense. Clearly the use of terms is not as black and white as you would like to assert. Ritual uncleanliness was referred to as sin in the Old Testament. However, that fact alone does not equate it with actual sin; which always requires a deliberate act of will.

LetsObeyChrist:

If bleeding alone disrupted it, then when the bleeding stopped that would suffice to restore atonement. It didn’t. God required an offering for sin be given the priests AFTER the bleeding stopped and all traces of it cleansed from the body.

Exactly my point. A sacrifice was required for ritual purification from a condition. For Mary to have refused to make this sacrifice would have been a sin. However, there is no sin mentioned in the passage of Leviticus you are referencing. So, for what is the sin offering being offered? You claim to know that it is personal sin but you cannot support it from Scripture because the relavent passages of scripture are only referring to ritual cleanliness as are the other sacrifices required for re-establishing ritual cleanliness. No one who was ritually unclean was allowed to mix with the community until they had gone through the proscribed rituals (with their accompanying sacrifices) at the Temple.

LetsObeyChrist:

Therefore oozing bodily fluids in the Presence of the Sovereign misses the mark of proper conduct, of respect, and is exposing God to what is unclean, nasty.

That is “missing the mark” if I ever saw it, “sin.”

It is wrong to expose God to such, He did not author such manifestations of disease and death. These exist because of the sinful rebellion against God and are the consequences of sin.

So, from this, I can only conclude that you are claiming that, because childbirth involves the release of blood and fluid from the body, childbirth itself is a sinful act. And yet, this cannot be the case because God Himself commanded us to be fruitful and to multiply. Addionally, He is the one who designed the method of human procreation and, therefore, you are accusing God of deliberately commanding us to do something which would be sinful in His eyes. This is nonesense and your whole argument falls apart at this point. Maybe you believe that the discharge of blood and fluid in childbirth is a result of the fall, but you cannot support that from Scripture. The only consequence of the fall related to childbirth that Genesis records is pain - and there is legitimate dispute on exactly what kind of pain that is and if it was a consequence to Eve personally or to all women through her.

Even if you successfully argue that the discharge of blood and fluid in childbirth is a result of the fall, then that is the result of Eve’s sin and NOT Mary’s. Therefore, the sin offering is required because of Eve and not because of the sins of individual mothers and, if you succeed in this point, you also refute your own argument. Do you understand the Catholic teaching on the difference between actual sin and the state of original sin?

You say that offering sacrifice for another’s sins is against the Mosaic Law and yet such sacrifices are actually commanded in Leviticus 16!!!

 

[Black_Jaque]

LOC,

Are you saying that Mary’s “sin” was bleeding during childbirth?

If that is a “sin” that one is culpable of on Judgement Day, then we do not share the same idea of sin. And yes, perhaps by your understanding, there is “sin” that is “not sin”.

I fully expect that Mary burnt supper on occasion - but not in a culpable way.

 

[theMutant]

I have a copy of the Douay-Rheims volumes as they were originally printed; including the original margin notes and annotations.

In reference to Leviticus 12, the following is printed in the margin of the Douay Old Testament, volume 1 (1635 reprint of the 1609 version):

The most pure VIRGIN MOTHER, was not subject to this law. For she conceived not by the seed of man, yet observed the custom of other women Luc 2.2. as Christ also would be baptized by S. John Baptist Mat.3. to give example of humility. S. Cyril. i. i. in Levit. S. Bernard. Ser. 3. de Purific.

(corrected with modern spelling)

While I cannot say with certainty that this view is a matter of doctrine, it does show a complete consistency in the Catholic teaching on the matter. If the sin offering is referring to the state of Original Sin, Mary was not subject to that provision of the Mosaic Law because she was preserved from Original Sin.

And what if the sin offering is referring to ritual uncleanliness, Mary still could have been exempted from the Law because the Church teaches that the actual birth of Christ was a miraculous event; to the point that her virginity remained intact. Beyond that, what exactly occurred in Christ’s birth has not been defined and, so, it is entirely possible that there was no issue of blood and fluid requiring ritual purification. My previous post was on the assumption that, miraculous as it was, there was still some issue involved. However, it is certainly possible that God simply made the amniotic sack and accompanying fluid disappear in the process of Christ’s birth.

You seem to have claimed, on more than one occasion, that to offer a sacrifice for sin when you have not sinned is itself a sin. Please tell us where it actually says that in Scripture.

 

[CANman]

LetsObeyChrist:

So a sinless Mary wrongly believing herself to be a sinner would not excuse the needless slaughter of Turtledoves and sinful rebellion against the law of God by offering sacrifice for reparation of unbroken atonement.

Wow, I see now how one must really REEEAAAACHHHHHH to try to have this argument make any sense at all. My arm ain’t that long. Anyhoo, Job offered sacrifices for his kids even though he wasn’t sure they did sin, but just in case they had. Now, in your analysis, Job is a sinner for sacrificing for his kids even though they may not have sinned. How pathetic.

 

[mlchance]

LetsObeyChrist,

In the midst of the bandying about of words, you missed a question that I’d really like answered.

You claim that the Catholic Church does not have ultimate authority to interpret Scripture. If this is true, then who does have this authority?

– Mark L. Chance.